Michael Johnston's note brought to mind a few disjoint thoughts, which I have
inserted below:
------------------------------
>Date: Fri, 30 Jul 99 14:25:00 -0600
>From: <michaeljohnston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Pre-press secrets
<snip>
>I, for instance, don't much care about absolute
>resolution; with my preferred films, coarse-structure contrast (5 lp/mm +
>or -) is more important. Lens "tests" generally tend to drive me batty
>for this reason, because they typically test for absolute resolution at
>atypical distance conjugates, which I just don't think matters all that
>much. And then they assign an arbitrary number or grade to that property,
>so you don't even have data to work from--never mind the fact that even
>having real data would still give a very incomplete picture. I'm a
>dyed-in-the-wool subjectivist, and there isn't much being written about
>lenses subjectively outside of Japan.
I read another Bronica-related mailing list, on which the subject of the quality
of the old Nikkors for the focal-plane-shutter Bronicas compared to the modern
leaf-shutter Zenzanon lenses recently came up. A certain individual on the list
poo-poohed the Nikkors and said, in so many words, that the newer Zenzanons
walked on water. The tone of this person's message left one with the impression
that nothing else mattered.
Rubbish, thinks I.
While there most certainly are measurable differences in terms of resolution,
distortion, contrast, color correction, yada yada yada between the two lens
families, I suspect that almost all of these differences are obliterated by
combinations of other, real-word variations, such as exposure variability,
camera shake, film type, development, and of course the influences of the good
ole' Mk 1 Mod 1 Braniac coupled with the Mk 1 Mod 1 Eyeball. The human element
(not only in terms of its influences on the taking of the photograph, but more
importantly its ultimate appreciation) is FAR more significant than any measured
difference in lens characteristics. One's likes or dislikes of a finished photo
are what's REALLY important.
<snip>
>I could talk about lenses all day, so I'd better shut up.
Oh please, Michael, don't! ;) You fit right in around here. You see, not only
do we like to talk about lenses, but we ALSO like to talk about and share our
photographs (e.g. actually USING lenses). This characteristic makes this
mailing list by far the most interesting and useful for me of all of the lists
that I subscribe to.
<snip>
>It's _really_ difficult publishing a magazine that's not mainly servicing a
client >industry. Forgive me if you've heard me say this before (I'm like a
broken record about >this, I'll admit it), but it's worth taking a slightly more
proactive stance toward any >magazine you really like and want to support. The
#1 best thing you can do is a) >subscribe for more than one year at a time and
b) send payment with your order. That goes >for _any_ magazine you really enjoy,
approve of, and want to support, in any field--not >just ours.
I'll bet. The other day I received a "complimentary subscription" to a photo
mag courtesy of the address list of a photo store in the midwest, who shall
remain nameless, but let's just say that they grow a LOT of corn in their area
of the USA. Anyway, on reading the magazine, I was struck by the fact that
there was a LOT of tobacco and alcohol ads in it (full-page, two-page, the
covers, and even a six-page fold-out insert!!!!), the style was more along the
lines of a "gentleman's entertainment" magazine, it was filled with fluffy eqmt.
reviews and lots of talk about models, photographers, book review snippets, etc.
and, of course, the occaisional photograph. Almost nothing that I could use.
Photo Techniques, on the other hand, is CHOCK-FULL of stuff I can use. The list
of these things is longer than I care to talk about here. 'Tis my not-so-humble
opinion that everyone on this list who cares about photography should give Photo
Techniques a look.
Besides, Photo Techniques is published in Chicago, not in "Neeeeeww Yooooork
Citttty"!! (BIG smiley here!).
Obligatory OM content: Aforementioned "corny" photo mag did have a two-page
Olympus ad showing a man in a flower-power shirt shooting a black OM-1/40mm f2
on the left, and the new Camedia C-2000Z on the right. The caption on the left
side read: "Remember the first camera you fell in love with?"
Whadda ya mean, remember? I still own it, thank you very much!
All right, enough electronic stuff. Time to go burn some film.
regards,
Mahlon
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|